Kore7 says: The enemy has no rules. They don’t give people trials, they summarily execute them and they’re brutal, inhuman creatures. But when we capture one of them, what we do is about us, not about them. I am complete agreement with him about this. This guy is such a weasel. The Geneva Conventions apply to armys of nations and were never intended for the likes of what were dealing with now Exactly...these guys don't fall under any of the Convetion due to the fact that they are not Uniformed soldiers, they have no rights....but until media and the ignorant minority get beaten down by the silent majority these scum bags will keep getting rights they have no right to have! so you think our military should have the right to torture people who are not uniformed soldiers? so who gets to decide who gets tortured and when? in my opinion, you either allow torturing or you don't...i unequivocally believe we should not. quite honestly, i think it's disgraceful. Torturing is not the issue. The Issue is about how decisions and protocols are arrived at, and by whom, and under what authority. Torture?? No....we shouldn't be taking captures in my opinion captives... Is this the same Lindsay Graham who was so totally against Bill Clinton during his presidency? Contrary to comments above and elsewhere, the rights guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions are designed to be extended exactly to all unconventional enemies, including insurgents, geurillas, non-uniformed combatants, and suspects captured by the US. The US Army Field Manual 34-52 on Interrogation of Insurgent Captives and Suspects is crystal clear on this and has been since 1949. The notion that the Conventions involve any sort of contract with enemies is fallacy and found nowhere in American or International law. The rights extended under Article 3 are designed to futher America's survival and preser... Thank you Kore7! If I remember correctly, the Geneva Convention dates back to the Civil War era and the FOURTH Geneva Convention was enacted to protect civilians. Am I remembering right? Geez, I hate it when I do this, the new legislation passed/signed by Bush also does not specify the meanings of torture, what can and cannot be done. But when we capture one of them, what we do is about us, not about them.Amen Great job in writing that Kore7! Thanks Hey guys, The Geneva Convention has been around since the Civil War, the Fourth Geneva convention was held around 1949, and one of the reasons for the original convention was the murder of prisoners of war during the Civil War. Here is a link to the history, and please note, it was started after a soldier MURDERED prisoners of war. http://www.genevaconventions.org/ "The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. This first Geneva Convention was inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross. Ever since then, the Red Cross has played an integral part in the drafting and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions." Just a note for you to read. Told ya, hate it when I do this. Another excerpt, dealing specifically with the 1949 convention: "In 1949, four Geneva Conventions extended protections to those shipwrecked at sea and to civilians." Please note term civilians. Can't find who wrote the following in a clip I guess? "But when we capture one of them, what we do is about us, not about them." I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. How we, as a country, conduct ourselves is of utmost importance. We cannot hope to proclaim justice for all if we do not enforce that ourselves. |
View the Top Clips from July 18, 2006
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||